Big oops ... need suggestions

[electricmanscott]

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Al, give up. You are now just arguing with yourself.

 

[charlie b]

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Originally posted by al hildenbrand: A switch used at some intermediate point along the branch circuit, for the purpose of controlling the utilization equipment, has the utilization equipment current inside the switch taken from that point on the Premises Wiring (System).

My emphasis in bold. This is where your argument breaks down.

Current has to leave the premises wiring system to have been "taken from" it. Consider a receptacle that is powered through a wall switch, and has a lamp plugged into it. The premises wiring system includes the switch, the receptacle, the wires, the conduits, and a few other things (not including the plates, I believe). It does not include the floor lamp. Once current passes from the receptacle to the lamp cord, and starts traveling up towards the light bulb, it has left the premises wiring system. The plug and receptacle connection is the point at which the current is "taken" from the premises wiring system. At the switch, that same current passes from the upstream wiring to the downstream wiring, and it never leaves the premises wiring system.

QED.

 

[al hildenbrand]

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Scott,

How am I arguing with myself? Show me the inconsistency where I am contradicting myself, if you can. I'm serious. I'm not trying to stir up emotions or waste people's time. I'd love to find out that my point is wrong, so I can stop doing this.

All this, in my mind, my thinking, got started by installing a Lutron? RadioRA? single pole low voltage dimmer (this device requires a neutral to work) in a bedroom, a dimmer which controlled an outside decorative luminaire. As you can read in the posts I've referenced a few pages back, the problem comes down to the definition of Outlet. Along the way, with the tolerance and good will of all the great minds and communicators here, I have explored key related definitions. They appear cohesive to me, yet I will welcome demonstration that they are not.

 

[al hildenbrand]

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Originally posted by iwire:
An outlet supplies utilization equipment, a switch supplies premises wiring.

Bob, forgive me for coming back to this again, but it has been rattling around in my head all morning. The crux of the confusion lies in "a switch supplies premises wiring."

And my point speaks directly to your last post, Charlie B.

A switch cannot supply premises wiring. Current does not enter the premises wiring from a switch and then return to the switch. Rather current enters the switch and returns to the premises wiring.

That is identical to a receptacle outlet current going out of the premises wiring to the utilization equipment and returning to the premises wiring. Never mind voltage. . .voltage is not in the definition. . .the definition of Outlet only looks at current.

Outlet is such an old, old, old and unchanged definition, I think we have become too sophisticated to appreciate its simplicity.

An Outlet is not an inlet, if you will allow me to use the term. I mean, current at the point of an inlet enters and returns from the Premises Wiring (System). This is the Service Point when a poco is involved.

An outlet is the point where current comes out and returns to the Premises Wiring (Sytem).

Current let in vs. current let out. That simple.

Edit typos & ran spell check - Al

[ October 18, 2005, 11:52 AM: Message edited by: al hildenbrand ]

 

[charlie b]

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Originally posted by al hildenbrand: . . . current enters the switch and returns to the premises wiring.

That is where we disagree. I submit that the switch is a component of the premises wiring system. Throughout the entire process of current approaching the switch, passing through the switch, and continuing on beyond the switch, that current remains within the premises wiring system.

By way of counter-example, the following things are not components of the premises wiring system:
</font>

• <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Portable lamps and microwave ovens (i.e., portable things that are plug & cord connected),</font>

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"></font>

• <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Ceiling light fixtures and heaters built into walls (i.e., permanently mounted things that are hard wired), and</font>

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> </font>

• <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Dishwashers (i.e., permanently mounted things that may be hard wired or plug & cord connected).</font>

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">

 

[al hildenbrand]

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Originally posted by Charlie B:
At the switch, that same current passes from the upstream wiring to the downstream wiring, and it never leaves the premises wiring system.

The italics is my emphasis, Charlie. The Article 100 definition of Premises Wiring (System) clearly states that "Such wiring does not include wiring internal to appliances, luminaires (fixtures), motors, controllers, motor control centers, and similar equipment." The switch in your example, to me, is inescapably a controller. The only current in the controlling switch is the utlization equipment current. In order for the current to travel in the controlling switch, the current has to leave and return to the Premises Wiring (System).

 

[charlie b]

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Originally posted by al hildenbrand:The switch in your example, to me, is inescapably a controller.

To me, that is escapable, for two reasons.

First, look earlier in that same definition. You will see that "wiring devices" are included as being components of the premises wiring system. According to many specifications that I have seen and many that I have written, all having been written in accordance with the guidelines of the Construction Specifications Institute (CSI), the phrase "wiring devices" includes receptacles, wall switches, dimmers, telephone jacks, and a mixed bag of other stuff. Pick up the bid package on a commercial building project, and look at spec section 16140 (sometimes it is 16141 or some other close number). The spec section will be called "Wiring Devices," and it will address wall switches.

Secondly, in that same definition the word "controllers" appears immediately after the word "motors" and immediately before the phrase "motor control centers." In that company, the word "controllers" is clearly meant to convey "motor controllers." Therefore, this definition is not excluding a light switch from being a component of the premises wiring system.

To me, the switch in my example is inescapably a component of the premises wiring system. Current does not leave (i.e., is not taken from) the premises wiring system until you get to the plug or the pigtail that brings current to the utilization equipment.

 

[peter d]

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

I assume this got missed or ignored the first time, so I will ask again:

Originally posted by peter d:
At the end of the day, where is the hazard of having an un-AFCI protected light switch in a bedroom?

Bottom line, is this really a great hazard, or just an opportunity to debate semantics?

 

[al hildenbrand]

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Peter,

While you have a point, that is about Safety.

This is NEC, and, to my knowledge, there is no amount of verbiage to large for a Code point being discussed among Code sharks.

 

[charlie b]

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Originally posted by peter d: I assume this got missed or ignored the first time, so I will ask again:

At the end of the day, where is the hazard of having an un-AFCI protected light switch in a bedroom?

There is no hazard.

I admit I had not directly addressed this question when it first came up. But see my earlier statement about using my PE seal. That statement is consistent with my claim that "there is no hazard."

 

[al hildenbrand]

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Charlie B,

While the CSI has a category for Wiring Devices for specification purposes, the NEC has:

2005 NEC Article 100
Controller. A device or group of devices that serves to govern, in some predetermined manner, the electric power delivered to the apparatus to which it is connected.

Clearly a Controller is both a controller and a device. The fact that a switch is a device is part of the confusion. A device used as a controller, by the definition of Premises Wiring (System) is, internally, not part of the premises wiring.

Now, "apparatus" is not defined in Article 100 even though it appears 164 times in the NEC and 33 times in the NECH commentary. The uses of "apparatus" are varying and essentially nontechnical.

2005 NEC Article 100
Scope. This article contains only those definitions essential to the proper application of this Code. It is not intended to include commonly defined general terms or commonly defined technical terms from related codes and standards.

New American Webster Handy College Dictionary
Ap"pa-ra'tus n all the equipment used for some purpose.

Your second point about </font>

• <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Motor control centers</font>
• <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Controllers</font>
• <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Motor controllers</font>

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I believe is confusing a single word term definition with definitions of multiword terms.

 

[jwelectric]

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

I have been giving some thought to this receptacle being called an outlet. I think that we all will agree that a receptacle is a device.

The receptacle is something that we plug something into. Now I do not have a Doctrine degree or a Masters degree. Some would debate weather I have a BS degree or not. It would all depend on what the ?B? & ?S? stood for. My wife tells me all the time that I am full of bull ----.
I just touched my head and I don?t think I have a degree (fever) at all.

What I seem to be having a problem with is calling this receptacle an outlet. How can something which gets something stuck into it be an outlet? I believe that this receptacle is an inlet. If this receptacle is an inlet instead of an outlet would it still need the arc-fault that is being talked about in this thread?

Pushing hard for the big 300

 

[al hildenbrand]

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Mike!

How can something which gets something stuck into it be an outlet?

RTFLMAO!

You have a BS in wordsmithing in my book!

 

[charlie b]

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Al, you are never going to get past this:
</font>

• <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The definition of "premises wiring system" clearly and explicitly includes "wiring devices."</font>

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"></font>

• <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">A switch is a "wiring device."</font>

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">
To that I will add that what the definition of "premises wiring system" excludes is the wiring internal to a list of things. Whatever you may think about a wall switch comprising a "controller," the switch does not fit in with the list of things being excluded.

 

[al hildenbrand]

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Charlie B.

Not all devices are switches.

Not all switches are controllers.

Controllers are devices. So by your point:

Originally posted by Charlie B:
The definition of "premises wiring system" clearly and explicitly includes "wiring devices."

You seem to declare that controllers are explicitly part of the premises wiring.

But wait: the last sentence of Premises Wiring (System) says that the controller, internally, is NOT part of the premises wiring.

By adhering to your logic you force an infinite loop. Yes, no, yes, no, . . . just depends where one stops reading.

My point is cohesive, no ambiguity. The last sentence was included in the definition of Premises Wiring (System) to state what is NOT part of the premises wiring. A controller is, internally, not part of the premises wiring system. And, yes, a controller is also a device, by definition. The switch controls the luminaire.

 

[iwire]

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

So Al, you believe Mark from UL is wrong?

Maybe I am slow but it seems to me by your interpretation every wire nut in a building is an outlet.

 

[jwelectric]

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Come on someone give me one more and we will tie ?Pimp My Ride?

 

[charlie b]

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Originally posted by al hildenbrand: Controllers are devices.

But they are not "wiring devices."

Al, you need to go back to logic school. I said that a switch is a wiring device (kinda like a dog is an animal). Then you say not all devices are switches (kinda like not all animals are dogs). True, but irrelevant, and certainly not the basis for a valid argument.

I'll try one more time:
</font>

• <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The premises wiring system includes wires and associated "wiring devices." That means that it includes switches.</font>

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">
The premises wiring system does not include each and every "device" that has ever been invented. It only includes the "wiring devices" that are associated with the wires internal and external to the building. It does not include "controllers," because a controller is not a "wiring device." It does, however, exclude the wires internal to controllers. Are you saying that it also excludes the wires internal to switches?

 

[charlie b]

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Originally posted by jwelectric: Come on someone give me one more and we will tie ?Pimp My Ride?

Happy now, Mike?

 

[jwelectric]

Re: Big oops ... need suggestions

Sorry it took so long to reply but i tried to do a backward somersault and had a hard time getting up.

Now to help you image what happened, think of a person that is 5 ft. 7 in. tall weighing in at 225 pounds jumping in the air and rotating their body 360 degrees in reverse.

First off I didn?t leave the floor I just barley extended the toes as I began my roll backwards. At about 90 degrees the top part of my anus was coming in contact with the floor. The impact was with such force that the windows began to vibrate and those dishes that were in the upper cabinets began to lose their equilibrium and sliding out of the cabinets.

Now when I finish here I will have to explain to the wife just what it is that I am trying to do in here. I think I shall tell her that I won the lottery.

next time i shall find a smiley to do this for me.